Hacker News Reader

Lobster wasn't always that way, early American settlers thought of it as gross poor-people food. To be clear they were a break from culinary tradition in that respect. They had debates about how often it was reasonable to force a servant or a convict to eat lobster. Maybe western culture will change its mind on insects, though I think they can leave me behind on that one.

View on HN

>They had debates about how often it was reasonable to force a servant or a convict to eat lobster.

Did people eat shrimp or clams or other shellfish at that time? What was so different about lobster? Personally I'm not a huge fan of it, partly because of the taste (it's ok, but not something I'd seek out, though I do like it in a bisque soup), and even moreso because it's just a big PITA to eat unless someone shells it for me, but I'm a huge fan of shrimp, the bigger the better. Unless a culture just doesn't like shellfish at all, I don't really understand why they would think of serving lobster to prisoners as some kind of awful punishment. I'd much rather eat lobster than overcooked or poorly cooked steak, for instance.

Insects don't sound too appetizing to me, either. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, one huge difference I see between insects and lobster/shrimp/crab is that with the latter, we don't normally eat the shell. (Some people actually do eat whole shrimp, shell and head included.) Instead, we pull the fleshy parts out of the shell and eat that. With modern-day insects, this generally isn't convenient or feasible, because most insects just aren't big enough to do this. I suppose it's possible with those gigantic beetles that are the size of some people's hands, but certainly not with crickets or grasshoppers. Having to eat the entire insect, shell and all, would make the culinary experience quite different I think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com